40 Trillion Reasons Evolution Is Dead

Almost 160 years ago, Charles Darwin thought life’s diversity could be explained through variation filtered by natural selection. Even though it has changed some over the years as I show later, I think the Darwinian idea is quite dead.

Why do I think that? Well, I think it for many reasons, a little less than 40,000,000,000,000 of those reasons have to do with you. I’m talking about the approximate number of cells in your body (1). Cells seem to give us countless reasons to cast doubt on Darwinism. Since I can’t give countless reasons here, let’s focus on one area.

Running you, in every single cell in your body, are many, many, many tiny machines. I hope you are not assuming I’m using the word “machine” as an analogy, I’m not. When I say your cells contain machines, I mean real machines. These are mechanisms that are made up of parts that use power to do specific tasks.

We have a great diversity of machines within our cells. Some think there are around 20,000 various types of these tiny world machines found within cells (2)! More commonly known examples have some funny names like myosin, kinesin, ATP synthase and dynein.

Our main experiences with machines are the big world type, our technology. If I would ask where these machine designs come from, you would give the only observable process: one or more engineers conceptualized, planned and designed them to be manufactured.

While there are a small number of small world machines that were human engineered, the far majority of them, the ones found in the cell, were not designed by us. Structures like DNA supply the plans for these machines, and these plans get passed on through the generations. If we could travel back to the first life, the obvious question that would arise is where did these plans come from?

Obviously, not from a human engineer, things don’t make themselves. Some say Darwinian evolution caused them. When I say Darwinian evolution, I mean the updated idea that all life arose through a universal common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection. But that has some big problems.

In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes. Last time I checked, mistakes don’t make complex, functional and meaningful text, plans, recipes and designs.

Darwin and others were influenced by the idea that “the present is the key to the past”. So, let’s hijack that for the fun of it. What is the present source for new machine design and information creation?

You know as much as I do that it always arises from intelligent beings. This means that Darwinian evolution does not work because it is not an intelligent mind! Since we know it can’t be human intelligence, the only other option I can think of is a non-human intelligent being!

Paul, in Romans, says that nature points to God. I do agree with Paul, and I think molecular machines also point to God. To think that the origin of life and life’s diversity came about by naturalistic mechanisms, like mutations, seems quite like fiction. That’s why it takes more faith to believe that than to think that God was the creator of all life on earth. It seems to me that the Biblical account of a Designer designing designs in nature is true, and that Darwinism is dead.


The apostle Peter taught us to have answers for our faith, which is what I try to do here. I would love for you to follow iApologia to get the latest updates to your inbox. Plus, I will send you my Free Quick Guide why that gives 8 reasons science points to God.


Please tell us your thoughts below!

 

Sources:
(1) Rose Eveleth, “There are 37.2 Trillion Cells in Your Body.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/ 
(2) “Biophysicist Ken Dill: Protein Machines Are ‘Real Machines. That’s Not a Metaphor’” https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/biophysicist-ken-dill-protein-machines-are-real-machines-thats-not-a-metaphor/

Share With Others!
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

82
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
75 Thread replies
7 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Jason HeadDaniel CurrierEd VaessenAndrewAnn Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Steve Brown
Guest
Steve Brown

“Last time I checked, mistakes don’t make complex, functional and meaningful text, plans, recipes and designs.” Because you don’t understand evolution…

Matt
Guest
Matt

Typo in the sixth paragraph: “…where not designed” and in the last paragraph: “…to believe that then”. I would share this article, but I feel like typos like this take away from the credibility.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew

First off, this is absolutely nothing more than the tired old “irreducible complexity” argument, which has been satisfactorily debunked multiple times by scientists who know a lot more about physiology than you do. Apart from that, you know how I can prove that humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor? Certain viruses cause genetic scarring in our DNA. These genetic scars are hereditary. Humans share the same pattern of genetic scarring as our two closest cousins, Chimpanzees and Orangutans- proving, irrefutably, that both humans and at least two species of modern apes share a direct common genetic ancestor.… Read more »

jason head
Guest
jason head

“First off, this is absolutely nothing more than the tired old “irreducible complexity” argument…”

This is an Argument from Verbosity. You claiming vast amounts of evidence against the argument without detailing that evidence. You then are able to wave your hand and made the irreducible complexity argument go away with a single sentence.

Now, please provide evidence for the evolutionary molecular transitions of the above mentioned cellular machines myosin, kinesin, ATP synthase and dynein. Also, please provide evidence for molecular transitions for Ribosomes, Mitochrondria, and cell wall.

Ann
Guest
Ann

In a “Dissecting Darwinism” article, there are some important points to discuss: “Two specific strengths of Darwinian evolution are generally agreed upon: 1.Species adapt to a change in environment (bird beak changes, bacterial resistance, fruit fly experiments). This is called microevolution. 2.There is similarity in the DNA across species (called homology). During the Texas State Board of Education testimony, weaknesses were raised about three issues: 1.Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA 2.Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell 3.Limitations of transitional species data to… Read more »

Jason Head
Guest
Jason Head

“Species adapt to a change in environment (bird beak changes, bacterial resistance, fruit fly experiments). This is called microevolution.”

Yes Ann. No doubt there is microevolution. But, microevolution is simply variation within kind due to potential traits from gene pool through recombination of already existing genetic code.

Variation within the dog and cat kind, but no dogs turning into sheep.

Ed Vaessen
Guest
Ed Vaessen

“In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes.”
Describe information.

Ed Vaessen
Guest
Ed Vaessen

“In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes.” The mistakes is intriguing. Why should mutations be mistakes? They are not bad at all. On the contrary: we may be very glad that they exist because some part of them are beneficial. Suppose that the DNA replication were perfect. Life would be in big troubles then because there would be no way for species to adapt to new circumstances. Mutations drive change and let us be happy for it. It seems you compare DNA with a book or computer program, so that any mistake would… Read more »

Jason Head
Guest
Jason Head

No. Adaption is due to variation within kind due to the gene pool through recombination of potential traits passed on by the male and female from already existed genetic code. Mutations are almost always harmful, or neutral, and even supposed “beneficial” mutations are harmful in the long term (e.g. mutation of blood cells that provides protection against sickle cell anemia, and yet 25% of the population dies due to the mutation itself). Scientific experiments on millions of generations of fruit flies and moths have demonstrated that only harmful mutations exist. If beneficial mutations were possible we all would be hearing… Read more »

Ed Vaessen
Guest
Ed Vaessen

As evolution theory is far from dead according to the scientific community, the question is raised who is to decide what a sound scientific theory is.

Ed Vaessen
Guest
Ed Vaessen

Dear Daniel, I am not an expert in science, but I can very well judge your position as well as the isolation in which you are living without knowing. The problem you have with evolution theory is that it tells you that Adam&Eve never existed and that the accounts in Genesis could never have happened if taken literally. It is a religious objection and not a scientific one. Had your name been Gerardus Bouw, a Christian who has a Ph.D. in astronomy, you would have believed that the earth does not revolve around the sun. Why? Well, because the Bible… Read more »

Jason Head
Guest
Jason Head

“So your these declarations seem to mean nothing at all to hundreds of thousands of people who know how to use their brain” That is an Argument ad populum – you are making an appeal to widespread belief that because a majority believes something then it MUST be true. That is a logical fallacy. “and are specialist in the relevant disciplines” Almost 1000 PHD’s and MD’s have signed the Dissent from Darwinism. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ From the homepage: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of… Read more »